Jump to content
2Timeless

Man acquitted of raping 17 year old in Ireland

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There are a zillion threads on here about rape with mega supporting data and facts and studies....  Rape is not about romance and sexual attraction but is about power (such as a 27 year old man with a 17 year old girl) and control and opportunity and violence.  

Rapists become increasingly more violent - they are not increasingly overcome with romantic fantasies.  There is a big misunderstanding between an act of sexual intimacy and a crime of assault and violence.... hence the laboured posts about types of clothing worn by women.  Rape victims come in all shapes and sizes, genders, ages, and clothing.  

A rapist with the intent to rape and with clear opportunity could care less about a person's clothing.  

Edited by Maryaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O W N A G E time x2

A: The defense lawyer was female.  Elizabeth O’Connell  <--- female!

Elizabeth O’Connell asked jurors at Cork Central Criminal Court last week to consider the teen had worn “A, B , C.”

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?” O’Connell asked jurors during closing arguments.

“You have to look at the way she was dressed,” she added.

The assault happened while she was a sleep, ( from the video )  and then it goes to some misogynistic diatribe.

A jury of eight men and four women acquitted the man unanimously after deliberating for 90 minutes,  that is 1h30min.

Questions :

  • What was she doing sleeping in a bed with a male, not wanting to consummate but in her underwear?. Getting a tan from the ceiling lights?
  • Did she not expect, that there is a possibility intercourse will happen?. This isn't a  movie.
  • Do women think they can do what they will, even with seduction and expect males to be subjugated?. We are dealing with biology and body language.
  • Ohh please, let us share a bed naked, but you better behave like a good saint and not touch me.

There were four women in the jury who could have abstained or given a different verdict. The evidence was against the female.

The feminists have taken this out of context and are using the underwear to ignore whatever other reasons where that lead to this intercourse without permission.

Carry on discussing nonsense. As usual the females need something to be hysterical about. EVIDENCE is king in the courtroom, yes, not queen but king.

Edited by monad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Abu Hadi I agree, which is why i tried to be a little careful with the way I phrased my post. I meant that the Prophet as well as ahl al bayt all had all sorts of evil surrounding them, they still practiced self control and patience and never wronged anyone. Men tempted by women's clothing should practice the same. 

23 minutes ago, Aflower said:

As @Khadim uz Zahra pointed out, it is impossible that an entire jury would have come to a conclusion based on one piece of 'evidence,' if you can even call it that. There were obviously many other elements and factors that were considered. I actually wrote something along these lines earlier, and subsequently deleted it, because I was concerned that I may have to face a barrage of criticism.

Well, believe it or not, in this particular case, all that's being discussed is the underwear worn by the victim. If you find out otherwise about this particular case (not the way the law is generally practiced) I'd love to hear it. 

30 minutes ago, Aflower said:

On a slightly different note, I've noticed that it's not what is said, or how it's said, that attracts positive/negative, or even some attention. It's actually who says it. I've come to realise that some of my posts have been paraphrased by certain individuals and they have been acknowledged. Yet mine have gone unnoticed when I've said the same things. Guess this comes down to the cliques. C'est la vie

Lol not quite sure what you're saying here. Who is this intended for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, monad said:

Ohh please, let us share a bed naked, but you better behave like a good saint and not touch me

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but the rape took place in a LANEWAY, dear brother. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It doesn't matter even if the whole courtroom was filled with females. Although this is hard for some people to comprehend, rape is not a feminist issue. It is a violation of basic human rights. If an individual responds with "boohoo" or anything remotely similar when hearing about a rape case, or any violation of basic human rights for that matter, then such an individual has no respect or honour for said basic human rights. So, enough with the useless retorts about feminazis. This is not a feminist cause. If anyone wishes to discuss feminism because they're so intrigued by it, they may do so on a separate thread. 

2) Please get your facts right. The rape took place in a laneway (another source described it as a "muddy alleyway") in Cork. No bed in sight. The man was 27, the girl was 17.

3)No matter how provoking a person is, you are a human and you control your desires. Men are not animals. Please understand that. Some men may have the inferiority complex and think they are incapable of dealing with their desires. 

 

Edited by 2Timeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

Well, believe it or not, in this particular case, all that's being discussed is the underwear worn by the victim. If you find out otherwise about this particular case (not the way the law is generally practiced) I'd love to hear it. 

A jury makes a decision primarily based on two criteria: 

1. Direct Evidence

2. Circumstantial Evidence.

Rape cases are almost always largely reliant on circumstantial evidence. This was true in the case of this trial too. Non-consensual sex is termed as rape, and unless there are witnesses or CCTV camera footage, it is infeasible to present direct evidence. Such trials will, sadly, almost always come down to 'He said' and 'She said.' The fact that the defence lawyer had to rely on some 'knickers' as her evidence in the first place is very telling about the lack of direct evidence. As the boys in my son's class quipped: "That's absolute pants." Very bad use of pun - but that's a bunch of eleven year olds for you trying to get their head around a very disturbing and mature issue. 

1 hour ago, 2Timeless said:

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but the rape took place in a LANEWAY, dear brother. LOL

Dear sister, as you yourself stated in your introductory post, the defendant has been acquitted of all charges. Irrespective of your personal opinion, you can not call this man a rapist. Indeed you could say that he has committed Zina, but you can't call him a rapist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2Timeless said:

I'll reply to the rest of your post later, but the rape took place in a LANEWAY, dear brother.

yes, different articles seem to present it with alterations. However I still blame the 17year old.

She went out on a date with an older guy and decided to dress in a particular way to be more appealing. She clearly was not wear those items by it self, so something led him to believe she was seducing him, and that were his signals to follow through. Of course in her mind, she was still playing the innocent little girl, playing dress up, imitating the magazine and movie covers.

He was most likely a hyper aggressive male, thus the ability to seduce her on a date. He won her from the countless of males that thought or decided to ask her out, but he did it. That is a sign of his aggressive nature and not showing his confidence. The nonsense regarding controlling desires, also falls back on the females. It works two way to initiate something, females want it both ways.

I suggest stop using humans rights to justify emotional opinion. He was acquitted, as the evidence was on his side. The articles are nothing but sensationalism, to get the females in a uproar. I wrote bohoo, knowing that the discussions would be nothing but conjecture, as we have no evidence.

 

Edited by monad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Rape cases are almost always largely reliant on circumstantial evidence. This was true in the case of this trial too. Non-consensual sex is termed as rape, and unless there are witnesses or CCTV camera footage,

I know, from a legal standpoint, I am incorrect, hence in my original post, I asked about views on this case from a social standpoint. Legally, he is not a rapist. In my view, according to the things I've read, and the argument presented by the defence and prosecution, I think he is a rapist.

EDIT - I also don't know the complete facts of the case. One can never be sure when it comes to cases like this one, but according to the things I know at the moment, he sounds like a rapist. 1 in 10 rape cases are even brought to court, and 1 in 4 get any satisfactory outcome (according to the MP in the video I attached earlier).  

Edited by 2Timeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, monad said:

. However I still blame the 17year old.

Victim blaming will not really allow me to read the rest of your post and actually take anything you say seriously. Women do not want it both ways. Some men just keep looking for ways to excuse disgusting and beastly behaviour. You can keep posting incredibly insensitive and offensive things, just know nothing you say will be held in high regard at all. Please rethink the things you've said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, monad said:

The assault happened while she was a sleep, ( from the video )  and then it goes to some misogynistic diatribe.

What was she doing sleeping in a bed with a male, not wanting to consummate but in her underwear?. Getting a tan from the ceiling lights?

Where are you getting this from? According to multiple news reports, the incident took place in an alleyway. Saying it happened in their shared bed while she was in her underwear is VERY different from it happening in an alley while she was dressed. Since this is a serious matter, I'll ask you to please provide a reference, or I'll edit your post to remove the factual inaccuracy.

Secondly, even if they were sleeping in a shared bed and she was in her underwear, why would you want to have sex with someone while she's sleeping and not even aware of what's happening? It's just not right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

I know, from a legal standpoint, I am incorrect, hence in my original post, I asked about views on this case from a social standpoint. Legally, he is not a rapist. In my view, according to the things I've read, and the argument presented by the defence and prosecution, I think he is a rapist.

Please forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the term 'social standpoint' in this context, and how it gives one a licence to call someone who has been acquitted of all charges a rapist. 

I've heard of a 'Feminist standpoint,' but even then it would be wrong to call someone who has been proven innocent as a rapist.

Is calling someone who has been acquitted of all charges, a rapist, not overstepping the mark? None of us were in the courtroom and I don't believe anyone has access to all the information/evidence that was presented.

Is your claim not overstepping the mark? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Please forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the term 'social standpoint' in this context, and how it gives one a licence to call someone who has been acquitted of all charges a rapist. 

I've heard of a 'Feminist standpoint,' but even then it would be wrong to call someone who has been proven innocent as a rapist.

Is calling someone who has been acquitted of all charges, a rapist, not overstepping the mark? None of us were in the courtroom and I don't believe anyone has access to all the information/evidence that was presented.

Is your claim not overstepping the mark? 

Well, there is a difference between what can be proven legally and what is true. For example, many people who are actual murderers and drug lords and so on get away with it because they kill the only witness who could testify to their crimes. Legally, you can't say that person is a murderer because the court never found them guilty but we would normally still consider such people murderers and so on. Stories like this are quite common in the mafia/drug business and so on, no?

Of course, there is a fine line and allowing your opinion to let you make an accusation could possibly also result in you accusing an innocent person at times. It's not always easy to know the truth, but I guess in this case, you could say that if the only sign of her 'consent' was that she was wearing a particular type of underwear and she told him she didn't want to do it - or, at least, didn't ask him to engage in sexual activity with her - then what happened was without consent and therefore criminal. Maybe there are more details we don't know, but from the details that have been shared, it doesn't seem like she consented, at least not to me.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read about this and there was only one witness that came forward.  He said that the man had his hand around the girls throat and she was saying that he had just raped her.  Seems like there is info missing here.

Anyway the sad thing about cases like this, especially where they are given such immense media exposure, will ensure that women (and young girls) will be even more reluctant to come forward.  This happens everywhere. 

 

Edited by Maryaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

Well, there is a difference between what can be proven legally and what is true. For example, many people who are actual murderers and drug lords and so on get away with it because they kill the only witness who could testify to their crimes. Legally, you can't say that person is a murderer because the court never found them guilty but we would normally still consider such people murderers and so on. Stories like this are quite common in the mafia/drug business and so on, no?

Going back to the original case, there are also incidences where women have consented, felt guilty, and then tried to put the blame on the man as they can't deal with the guilt. In the case of the trial being discussed by the sister, I don't believe that there is any evidence directly implicating the man. On what basis does the sister believe that he is guilty? Feelings and gut instincts alone? That's wrong, no? Generalising and always blaming the man in rape cases is wrong too, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Is your claim not overstepping the mark?

By 'social standpoint' I intended this case to be discussed in terms of the implications it will have on young boys and girls. Such a case will teach young people that if a girl is wearing something particularly provocative, she is signalling for all the men to violate her in the most horrific way possible. It will teach young men and boys that they can get away with such a disgusting violation. This will significantly damage our society not just temporarily, while this "feminazi craze" lasts, but it will have permanent negative impacts on the way our society is operated. 

As for me believing him to be a rapist, that is my own personal opinion, you are free to believe otherwise. According to what I've read about the case, I believe the victim. Firstly, I doubt any seventeen year old girl will particularly enjoy sitting in a courtroom, having her underwear waved around, and watch a man ten years older than her defend himself against rape charges. Secondly, as @Maryaam put so eloquently, rape is always about power. It is never about sexual gratification. Look at the power dynamic between the two in this case. The victim is a 17 year old girl, and the defendant is a 27 year old man. Where did the rape take place? In a "muddy alleyway". All of these facts provide us with at the very least, a rough idea of who was in a more vulnerable and compromising position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aflower said:

Going back to the original case, there are also incidences where women have consented, felt guilty, and then tried to put the blame on the man as they can't deal with the guilt. In the case of the trial being discussed by the sister, I don't believe that there is any evidence directly implicating the man. On what basis does the sister believe that he is guilty? Feelings and gut instincts alone? That's wrong, no? Generalising and always blaming the man in rape cases is wrong too, no?

I edited my post after I wrote it so perhaps you could refresh the page and look at the second paragraph. I can't know what Timeless is thinking, but my impression would be that she's considering it to be a criminal act based on the fact that a choice of underwear is not consent so if that is what is being used as proof of consent, then the man would be guilty, as I stated earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sisters, I am a woman who has gone to University in the UK. I have heard of incidents where girls have teased guys, lured the guys in, gone all the way. The morning after they are riddled with guilt because they feel 'cheap' and 'dirty' after the hangover effects have worn off. They then blame the guy. I've even seen muslim women behave this way. Girls in the UK lose their virginity, in some cases, when they are as young as 11. 

@Maryam is correct. When did I say otherwise? My point here is ONLY that I'm a firm believer of 'innocent until proven guilty'. This guy isn't a serial rapist that one can automatically assume that he must be guilty.

Personally I think that accusing someone without any CONCLUSIVE evidence is very unislamic.

Edited by Aflower
Removed comment about mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Sisters, I am a woman who has gone to University in the UK.

Lol, quite irrelevant here. So am I, and I'm doing a course very relevant to this case, and what?

4 minutes ago, Aflower said:

his guy isn't a serial rapist that one can automatically assume that he must be guilty. 

So, unless you're a serial killer or serial rapist, we need to agree with such silly defence arguments? My initial issue with this case was that the judge stated that the girl's underwear was what signified consent. The judge did not state that there was consent in this case because of any other reason. It was because of the underwear the girl was wearing in an alley for crying out loud! Secondly, no one assumed he was guilty immediately. Most of us have read the case facts, and have arrived to a conclusion based on those facts. 

7 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Personally I think that accusing someone without any CONCLUSIVE evidence is very unislamic

Unfortunately, a lot of legal practice does not rely on conclusive evidence. Rape is very difficult to prove. Does that mean we declare all alleged rapists innocent until proven guilty? By that logic, we will have serial rapists roaming the streets and raping every other woman they see. No one is denying that some rape charges are baseless. On the other hand, we also have genuine rape cases that get disregarded. We cannot ignore such cases because of the few (or maybe even many) bad apples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Lol, quite irrelevant here. So am I, and I'm doing a course very relevant to this case, and what?

So, unless you're a serial killer or serial rapist, we need to agree with such silly defence arguments? My initial issue with this case was that the judge stated that the girl's underwear was what signified consent. The judge did not state that there was consent in this case because of any other reason. It was because of the underwear the girl was wearing in an alley for crying out loud! Secondly, no one assumed he was guilty immediately. Most of us have read the case facts, and have arrived to a conclusion based on those facts. 

Unfortunately, a lot of legal practice does not rely on conclusive evidence. Rape is very difficult to prove. Does that mean we declare all alleged rapists innocent until proven guilty? By that logic, we will have serial rapists roaming the streets and raping every other woman they see. No one is denying that some rape charges are baseless. On the other hand, we also have genuine rape cases that get disregarded. We cannot ignore such cases because of the few (or maybe even many) bad apples. 

Dearest Sister, I have a different take and I won't elaborate on it as this post will become a circular argument.  Let's just respect that we view things from a different perspective. 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

 My initial issue with this case was that the judge stated that the girl's underwear was what signified consent. The judge did not state that there was consent in this case because of any other reason.

So, having read a bit more of the coverage, it seems the judge didn't agree to that. The defence lawyer was the one who brought up this argument in her closing remarks and the jury found the defendant not guilty. As far as we know, the judge never agreed to this argument and maybe the jurors didn't either, and were relying on something else for their judgement. In all fairness, I also made the same mistake in my first post on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Dearest Sister, I have a different take and I won't elaborate on it as this post will become a circular argument.  Let's just respect that we view things from a different perspective. 

Just sounds like you don't want to have this debate, or just have no response, which is quite sad, I'd have liked to see exactly what it is you disagreed with. Unfortunate. 

@Khadim uz Zahra in that case, i apologise for the inaccuracy. I had an issue with the defence's argument of consent being indicated by the underwear the victim was wearing. 

Edited by 2Timeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Aflower said:

Going back to the original case, there are also incidences where women have consented, felt guilty, and then tried to put the blame on the man as they can't deal with the guilt. In the case of the trial being discussed by the sister, I don't believe that there is any evidence directly implicating the man. On what basis does the sister believe that he is guilty? Feelings and gut instincts alone? That's wrong, no? Generalising and always blaming the man in rape cases is wrong too, no?

The accusation of rape is always one that elicits an emotional response.
 
There are definitely fake cases of rape put forward by people for a variety of reasons, including as part of a political agenda.  Could list some but would just derail this more! 
 
However,  the system is set so that the accused gets benefit of the doubt.  You have to prove guilt or prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to get a verdict.  He said / she said does not lead to proof.  So, the court needs to rely on independent witnesses, CCTV footage, or maybe a badly beaten (or dead) body with DNA evidence.  
 
Many who are guilty can be acquitted or can be, due to lack of evidence (the big issue here), plead out on lesser charges.  This is to keep our system fair for the innocent but for real victims may lead to emotional distress and sense of betrayal from the system.
 
How many women (or men) do you know who would lay charges after being raped?  Studies I have read in the past say 1 in 10. My opinion is that is an overestimate. I am not sure that I would come forward.  It is hard enough to deal with the trauma without initiating another one - one that may become very public.
 
And on the other side, an innocent person who has been charged with rape, and is subsequently acquitted, is still seen as guilty by some.... by enough people to impact their life in a negative way.
 
Don't know what the system can do to improve this.  No matter what the verdict there is always doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 2Timeless said:

Just sounds like you don't want to have this debate, or just have no response, which is quite sad, I'd have liked to see exactly what it is you disagreed with. Unfortunate. 

@Khadim uz Zahra in that case, i apologise for the inaccuracy. I had an issue with the defence's argument of consent being indicated by the underwear the victim was wearing. 

Sister your response is very immature. I have already said what I have to say on the matter. I don't need to prove my viewpoint to anyone and this will be my last comment on THIS post. If you see it as being your personal victory to have the last word, or to post the last comment, so be it. Good luck to you.

Frankly, I thought what @Khadim uz Zahrahas just written was common sense and already known to all. In any case, he sumed up this matter perfectly and it was actually a nice way to end this debate. Hence, I will paste his quote below: 

36 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

As far as we know, the judge never agreed to this argument and maybe the jurors didn't either, and were relying on something else for their judgement. 

 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aflower lol, I'm sorry dearest sister, I didn't mean to get you so triggered! It is now immature to be genuinely interested in an oh-so-knowledgeable individual's viewpoint. I didn't know that that's the common sense of your generation. I'm ever so sorry. I advise you to handle losing an argument a little better than you are now, it doesn't look to great for you to be so offended that someone is simply arguing their point in a respectful manner. Common sense dictates that you reciprocate that respect, otherwise you simply lose respect for yourself. May Allah lengthen your temper and keep you on the right path, dear sister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×